Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Reports of protests are overblown. A few incidents around the country, but nothing major.

5 (45.5%)

A few major incidents in capitals, but nothing much in DC.

5 (45.5%)

A major incident in DC, but nothing much around the country.

0 (0%)

More than 10 capitals have major upheavals, but nothing much in DC.

0 (0%)

A major incident in DC plus more than 10 capitals with significant upheavals.

1 (9.1%)

More than half the capitals around the country have problems with protesters, but DC is quiet.

0 (0%)

DC has major problems, while more than half the capitals around the country also have considerable trouble with protesters.

0 (0%)

Huge disruption to the day.

0 (0%)

Total Members Voted: 9

Voting closed: January 19, 2021, 10:49:21 PM

[FlyingVProd]

I strongly support unions, and SAG used to be great. I have always looked forward to getting my SAG card, and as a producer I registered my script for "Echo, A Rock and Roll Tragedy" with SAG so that I could use SAG talent, and my SAG representative was Ruth Garbutt Lewis, and they sent me a guide for independent producers full of rules that I need to follow when using SAG talent, SAG protects their members.

But lately I have heard some bad things about SAG-AFTRA, and I hope that the members of SAG-AFTRA will work hard to make SAG great again. And people need to remember how far we have come because of unions, and teamwork, and we need for people to work together as a team to make SAG great again.

Salute,

Tony V.

[oilcan]

Properly executing the warrant was probably why charges were not filed for murder. The investigating committee was under an extreme public microscope.

No,  grand juries are very reluctant to indict police officers (whereas they'll indict anything else,  as Sol Wachtler famously remarked), and prosecutors are reluctant to push for indictments of people they work with every day.   That's why cases involving officer shootings should be handled by special prosecutors, outside the usual structure.   Then prosecutors don't have to deal with their own bias that might arise in indicting a coworker.   

[Hamilton Samuels]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqJtJU7PoqE


"Vote him out!"


Great video of Trump getting pelted with boos and chants on the steps of the SCOTUS.

[Hamilton Samuels]

I strongly support unions, and SAG used to be great. I have always looked forward to getting my SAG card, and as a producer I registered my script for "Echo, A Rock and Roll Tragedy" with SAG so that I could use SAG talent, and my SAG representative was Ruth Garbutt Lewis, and they sent me a guide for independent producers full of rules that I need to follow when using SAG talent, SAG protects their members.

But lately I have heard some bad things about SAG-AFTRA, and I hope that the members of SAG-AFTRA will work hard to make SAG great again. And people need to remember how far we have come because of unions, and teamwork, and we need for people to work together as a team to make SAG great again.

Salute,

Tony V.

Don't vote for the GOP, then.

[oilcan]

A New York Times investigation concluded that a neighbor, who was on the staircase immediately above Taylor's apartment, heard the officers shout "Police!" once (contrary to what law enforcement told investigators) and knocked three times, while approximately eleven other neighbors, heard no announcement. According to this investigation, every neighbors' account conflicts with law enforcement.

Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron said Louisville Metro officers knocked and announced themselves before breaching the door to Breonna Taylor's apartment.

Exactly. Ham sandwich. It is the AG's evidentiary choice, not the facts that dictated the Grand Jury finding. And that the AG chose from competing statements the one most favorable to the police is not surprising and the whole issue. Of.course, stupid people and intellectually dishonest poltroons will pretend his word is somehow gospel.

The Prosecutor did not “ choose from competing statements”, the members of the grand jury did.

You have missed the point of the Ham Sandwich.

It would have been unethical to withhold exculpatory evidence that could lead to acquittal at a trial.

Indeed. But that is not the issue. The AG never got to the point of providing g or withholding exculpatory evidence to the defense. He is under no duty to present exculpatory evidence to the Grand Jury.

You so ignore that the statement proclaimed by the AG is not supported by a Grand Jury finding. The Grand Jury does not make specific factual findings.  It merely determines whether and who to indict and.the charges.

You are having trouble fashioning a narrative you like.
Of course the whole purpose of the grand jury is to indict or not.  It weighs the evidence presented and makes a decision.
Even if the Prosecutor has no duty to present exculpatory evidence it would be pretty stupid to so because it could lead to an acquittal from an unnecessary trial.  It is also unethical.  In this case the prosecutor knew of contradicting evidence of whether or not the police knocked on the door and identified themselves.

Given the abundance of evidence for no audible announcements of the warrant (eleven witnesses versus ONE),  that would suggest an indictment.   If it had been a ham sandwich, the prosecutor would have pushed for an indictment, and easily gotten one.   Not so much,  when cops are involved,  as i noted above.  That's the whole point, dude.   You understand the standard of evidence for a GJ is different from that of a trial,  right?   

[Hamilton Samuels]

It's amusing in one way, and quite sad in another way, to see people try to use logic and reason with the illogical and unreasonable. It's like yelling at a rock to get up and run across a field.

"Come on, Rock! Get moving! Don't just sit there! Go, go, go!!!"

No amount of verbal exertion will move that rock anymore than any logically presented and reasonable argument will sway the totally committed sycophants and stooges who occupy the right.

Save your reasonable and rational arguments for when and where they can make an impact.

Don't yell at rocks.


Send them licorice to eat, instead:
https://dailyvoice.com/new-york/nassau/news/54-year-old-man-dies-from-eating-too-much-licorice/794876/

[REDSTATEWARD]

A New York Times investigation concluded that a neighbor, who was on the staircase immediately above Taylor's apartment, heard the officers shout "Police!" once (contrary to what law enforcement told investigators) and knocked three times, while approximately eleven other neighbors, heard no announcement. According to this investigation, every neighbors' account conflicts with law enforcement.

Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron said Louisville Metro officers knocked and announced themselves before breaching the door to Breonna Taylor's apartment.

Exactly. Ham sandwich. It is the AG's evidentiary choice, not the facts that dictated the Grand Jury finding. And that the AG chose from competing statements the one most favorable to the police is not surprising and the whole issue. Of.course, stupid people and intellectually dishonest poltroons will pretend his word is somehow gospel.

The Prosecutor did not “ choose from competing statements”, the members of the grand jury did.

You have missed the point of the Ham Sandwich.

It would have been unethical to withhold exculpatory evidence that could lead to acquittal at a trial.

Indeed. But that is not the issue. The AG never got to the point of providing g or withholding exculpatory evidence to the defense. He is under no duty to present exculpatory evidence to the Grand Jury.

You so ignore that the statement proclaimed by the AG is not supported by a Grand Jury finding. The Grand Jury does not make specific factual findings.  It merely determines whether and who to indict and.the charges.

You are having trouble fashioning a narrative you like.
Of course the whole purpose of the grand jury is to indict or not.  It weighs the evidence presented and makes a decision.
Even if the Prosecutor has no duty to present exculpatory evidence it would be pretty stupid to so because it could lead to an acquittal from an unnecessary trial.  It is also unethical.  In this case the prosecutor knew of contradicting evidence of whether or not the police knocked on the door and identified themselves.

Given the abundance of evidence for no audible announcements of the warrant (eleven witnesses versus ONE),  that would suggest an indictment.   If it had been a ham sandwich, the prosecutor would have pushed for an indictment, and easily gotten one.   Not so much,  when cops are involved,  as i noted above.  That's the whole point, dude.   You understand the standard of evidence for a GJ is different from that of a trial,  right?

The standard for evidence doesn’t change whether it is presented to a grand jury or a trial jury.
The difference is a grand jury does not decide on guilt or innocence. 

[Hairy Lime]

A New York Times investigation concluded that a neighbor, who was on the staircase immediately above Taylor's apartment, heard the officers shout "Police!" once (contrary to what law enforcement told investigators) and knocked three times, while approximately eleven other neighbors, heard no announcement. According to this investigation, every neighbors' account conflicts with law enforcement.

Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron said Louisville Metro officers knocked and announced themselves before breaching the door to Breonna Taylor's apartment.

Exactly. Ham sandwich. It is the AG's evidentiary choice, not the facts that dictated the Grand Jury finding. And that the AG chose from competing statements the one most favorable to the police is not surprising and the whole issue. Of.course, stupid people and intellectually dishonest poltroons will pretend his word is somehow gospel.

The Prosecutor did not “ choose from competing statements”, the members of the grand jury did.

You have missed the point of the Ham Sandwich.

It would have been unethical to withhold exculpatory evidence that could lead to acquittal at a trial.

Indeed. But that is not the issue. The AG never got to the point of providing g or withholding exculpatory evidence to the defense. He is under no duty to present exculpatory evidence to the Grand Jury.

You so ignore that the statement proclaimed by the AG is not supported by a Grand Jury finding. The Grand Jury does not make specific factual findings.  It merely determines whether and who to indict and.the charges.

You are having trouble fashioning a narrative you like.
Of course the whole purpose of the grand jury is to indict or not.  It weighs the evidence presented and makes a decision.
Even if the Prosecutor has no duty to present exculpatory evidence it would be pretty stupid to so because it could lead to an acquittal from an unnecessary trial.  It is also unethical.  In this case the prosecutor knew of contradicting evidence of whether or not the police knocked on the door and identified themselves.

LOL. Ham sandwich.

[Hamilton Samuels]

A New York Times investigation concluded that a neighbor, who was on the staircase immediately above Taylor's apartment, heard the officers shout "Police!" once (contrary to what law enforcement told investigators) and knocked three times, while approximately eleven other neighbors, heard no announcement. According to this investigation, every neighbors' account conflicts with law enforcement.

Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron said Louisville Metro officers knocked and announced themselves before breaching the door to Breonna Taylor's apartment.

Exactly. Ham sandwich. It is the AG's evidentiary choice, not the facts that dictated the Grand Jury finding. And that the AG chose from competing statements the one most favorable to the police is not surprising and the whole issue. Of.course, stupid people and intellectually dishonest poltroons will pretend his word is somehow gospel.

The Prosecutor did not “ choose from competing statements”, the members of the grand jury did.

You have missed the point of the Ham Sandwich.

It would have been unethical to withhold exculpatory evidence that could lead to acquittal at a trial.

Indeed. But that is not the issue. The AG never got to the point of providing g or withholding exculpatory evidence to the defense. He is under no duty to present exculpatory evidence to the Grand Jury.

You so ignore that the statement proclaimed by the AG is not supported by a Grand Jury finding. The Grand Jury does not make specific factual findings.  It merely determines whether and who to indict and.the charges.

You are having trouble fashioning a narrative you like.
Of course the whole purpose of the grand jury is to indict or not.  It weighs the evidence presented and makes a decision.
Even if the Prosecutor has no duty to present exculpatory evidence it would be pretty stupid to so because it could lead to an acquittal from an unnecessary trial.  It is also unethical.  In this case the prosecutor knew of contradicting evidence of whether or not the police knocked on the door and identified themselves.

LOL. Ham sandwich.

Don't yell at rocks!

[REDSTATEWARD]

A New York Times investigation concluded that a neighbor, who was on the staircase immediately above Taylor's apartment, heard the officers shout "Police!" once (contrary to what law enforcement told investigators) and knocked three times, while approximately eleven other neighbors, heard no announcement. According to this investigation, every neighbors' account conflicts with law enforcement.

Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron said Louisville Metro officers knocked and announced themselves before breaching the door to Breonna Taylor's apartment.

Exactly. Ham sandwich. It is the AG's evidentiary choice, not the facts that dictated the Grand Jury finding. And that the AG chose from competing statements the one most favorable to the police is not surprising and the whole issue. Of.course, stupid people and intellectually dishonest poltroons will pretend his word is somehow gospel.

The Prosecutor did not “ choose from competing statements”, the members of the grand jury did.

You have missed the point of the Ham Sandwich.

It would have been unethical to withhold exculpatory evidence that could lead to acquittal at a trial.

Indeed. But that is not the issue. The AG never got to the point of providing g or withholding exculpatory evidence to the defense. He is under no duty to present exculpatory evidence to the Grand Jury.

You so ignore that the statement proclaimed by the AG is not supported by a Grand Jury finding. The Grand Jury does not make specific factual findings.  It merely determines whether and who to indict and.the charges.

You are having trouble fashioning a narrative you like.
Of course the whole purpose of the grand jury is to indict or not.  It weighs the evidence presented and makes a decision.
Even if the Prosecutor has no duty to present exculpatory evidence it would be pretty stupid to so because it could lead to an acquittal from an unnecessary trial.  It is also unethical.  In this case the prosecutor knew of contradicting evidence of whether or not the police knocked on the door and identified themselves.

LOL. Ham sandwich.

LOL

[Hamilton Samuels]

[Hamilton Samuels]

[kidcarter8]

---Black attorney general chokes up during Taylor announcement---

Trying to feel the pain, but seriously to start shooting at cops?

To be fair, seems that one shooter was an outlier

Bothers me more that people in so many cities participated in protest last night.  Not criticizing them at all - but the overall picture in terms of PEACE looks bleak.

NO JUSTICE?
NO PEACE.

What do you prefer he charges to have been?

If you don’t know by now I can’t tell you.

You won't say since you can't defend it

I honestly don't know what level you are thinking should be charged - and who.

[josh]

---Black attorney general chokes up during Taylor announcement---

Trying to feel the pain, but seriously to start shooting at cops?

To be fair, seems that one shooter was an outlier

Bothers me more that people in so many cities participated in protest last night.  Not criticizing them at all - but the overall picture in terms of PEACE looks bleak.

NO JUSTICE?
NO PEACE.

What do you prefer he charges to have been?

If you don’t know by now I can’t tell you.

You won't say since you can't defend it

I honestly don't know what level you are thinking should be charged - and who.

Then you "honestly don't know" anything, since it got spelled out, already.

Oh, wait. I'm not responding to you, because you don't honestly do anything, for the most part.

[josh]

https://www.cnn.com/videos/health/2020/09/17/covid-19-vaccine-trial-astrazeneca-participant-symptoms-cohen-dnt-ebof-vpx.cnn?hpt=ob_blogfooterold